Certification of Non-Forum Shopping: Why One Signature May Not Be Enough in Collective Labor Claims

When workers file a case together, they often assume that one person can sign the required paperwork on behalf of everyone. A Supreme Court decision from 2005 shows that this assumption can be costly, particularly when it leads to the dismissal of an otherwise valid labor complaint.

In Rambuyon v. Fiesta Brands, Inc., G.R. No. 157029 (December 15, 2005), the Court affirmed the dismissal of a petition because the certification against forum shopping was signed by only one of ten petitioners. The ruling underscores a procedural requirement that every litigant—especially in collective claims—must take seriously.

The Case Behind the Ruling

Fiesta Brands, Inc. operates a desiccated coconut processing plant in Medina, Misamis Oriental. The company maintains a pool of extra shellers who are called in when there is an oversupply of coconuts or when regular workers are absent. These extra shellers were paid P158 per day for shelling at least 1,400 coconuts.

In August 2000, the company introduced a new shelling system: extra shellers would be paid P220 per day, but the daily quota was raised to 2,000 coconuts. Those who agreed to the new system were accredited and given hiring preference. Several extra shellers, including the petitioners, refused to adopt the new system. As a result, they were no longer given work assignments.

The petitioners filed consolidated complaints for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter, arguing that they were regular employees who had been terminated without just cause and due process. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints, finding that the extra shellers were not regular employees and had simply refused to work under the new system. The NLRC affirmed this ruling.

The Procedural Misstep That Proved Fatal

Undeterred, the petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals through a special civil action for certiorari. However, the verification and certification against forum shopping attached to their petition was signed by only one petitioner, Jimmy Kent Rambuyon.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition outright for violating Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court. The appellate court held that the certification was insufficient in form and substance.

The petitioners argued that nothing in the Rules requires all petitioners to sign the certification. They relied on Escorpizo v. University of Baguio (G.R. No. 121962, April 30, 1999), claiming that any principal party may sign. They also explained that difficulty in locating their co-petitioners prevented them from obtaining all signatures.

The Supreme Court's Ruling on Certification Requirements

The Supreme Court rejected the petitioners' arguments and affirmed the dismissal. The Court clarified that Escorpizo does not support the proposition that one signature suffices. In Escorpizo, the certification was signed by counsel, not by any party. The Court held there that the certification must be executed by the plaintiff or principal party, not by the attorney.

The Court then cited Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91, as amended by SC Administrative Circular No. 04-94, which expressly mandates that the certification against forum shopping must be signed by all petitioners. Failure to comply is a cause for dismissal.

The Court also referenced United Residents of Dominican Hill, Inc. v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems (G.R. No. 135945, March 7, 2001) and Docena v. Lapesura (G.R. No. 140153, March 28, 2001), both of which held that signing by only one petitioner is insufficient.

However, the Court recognized a narrow exception. In Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman (G.R. No. 139396, August 15, 2000), the Court ruled that a petition signed by only one of several petitioners is defective unless the signatory was duly authorized by the co-parties to represent them and sign the certification.

In Rambuyon, no such authorization was shown. The Court also found the excuse of difficulty in locating co-petitioners unconvincing. Records showed that all ten petitioners had signed the verification of their position paper before the Labor Arbiter, demonstrating that coordination was possible.

The Court emphasized that the attestation in the certification requires personal knowledge by the party executing it. One petitioner cannot presume to know whether his co-petitioners have filed other claims or actions.

The Factual Issues in Certiorari Petitions

Beyond the procedural defect, the Court addressed the substantive arguments. The petitioners raised the issue of whether they were regular employees illegally dismissed. The Court held that this is a factual question, which is not proper in a petition for review under Rule 45. Only questions of law may be reviewed.

The Court noted that both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had exhaustively discussed and ruled on the factual issues. Factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies with acquired expertise are generally accorded great respect and even finality when supported by substantial evidence. The Court found no reason to disturb those findings.

Practical Takeaways

• All petitioners must sign the certification against forum shopping. In collective claims, every named petitioner should execute and sign the certification. A single signature renders the pleading defective.

• Authorization must be explicit and documented. If one petitioner signs on behalf of others, there must be a clear showing of authority—ideally in writing—naming the representative and authorizing the signature.

• Difficulty in coordinating is not a valid excuse. The Court has rejected claims that co-petitioners were hard to locate, especially when prior filings show that coordination was feasible.

• Procedural defects can end a case before the merits are reached. The dismissal in Rambuyon was based on a technicality, highlighting the importance of strict compliance with the Rules of Court.

• Factual findings of labor tribunals carry great weight. When appealing to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, focus on questions of law. Challenging factual findings is rarely successful.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.